Serving the Quantitative Finance Community

 
User avatar
Marsden
Posts: 787
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Random Republican WINGNUTS (or RRWs as they are affectionately known as)

June 24th, 2022, 5:32 pm

"Conservative" Supreme Court Justices' confirmation votes in the Senate, the year of their confirmations, and the percent of the represented population (parts of the country like the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, with no Senate representation, are excluded) that opposed their elevation to the Court:

John Roberts 78-22 (2005) 36.8% AGAINST
Clarence Thomas 52-48 (1991) 52.0% AGAINST
Samuel Alito 58-42 (2005) 50.2% AGAINST
Neil Gorsuch 54-45 (2017) 54.4% AGAINST
Brett Kavanaugh 50-48 (2017) 56.3% AGAINST
Amy Coney Barrett 52-48 (2020) 53.1% AGAINST

(A state whose Senators split on support has its population counted half FOR, half AGAINST. Absences and "PRESENT" votes included as FOR votes. Population is based on the Census in effect for House Apportionment at the time of the vote, the main skewness from which is that Thomas' populations are based on the almost-ten-years-out-of-date 1980 Census.)

So right now, a majority of the Supreme Court -- all fairly aligned in their political perspectives -- is composed exclusively of Justices whose appointment was opposed by Senators representing a majority of the American people.

I might add that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett were each nominated by a President who lost the popular vote when he won his election to office, and Gorsuch was appointed only after Trumpublicans in the Senate refused to hold a vote on Obama's nominee for eleven months.

Keep this in mind whenever you hear about governments "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
 
User avatar
bearish
Posts: 5186
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

Re: Random Republican WINGNUTS (or RRWs as they are affectionately known as)

June 24th, 2022, 9:18 pm

It is truly shocking to me that a country as violent and replete with weapons as the US has not seen much in the way of political/judicial (to the extent you can make a distinction) assassinations during the last few decades. I predict that will change rapidly. Probably not to the level of Mexico, but maybe more like Italy. Or Colombia in the 80’s.
 
User avatar
Marsden
Posts: 787
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Random Republican WINGNUTS (or RRWs as they are affectionately known as)

June 25th, 2022, 1:05 am

It is curious.

Maybe it's that most of our history of violence has essentially been committed by the political elite, to keep others in line. That was certainly how it was through slavery and segregation, and you could probably say also for labor relations through the industrialization period.

I don't think the overturning of Roe will result in, e.g., assassination of judges; the people harmed by the decision -- younger women -- sort of have had beaten into them that they are second class citizens and can expect to get pushed around.

It's more, per my perception, when people who view themselves as properly in power have it taken away that things get violent.

Why is Latin America different? Bolivar's time in Haiti? Dunno.
 
User avatar
Collector
Posts: 2572
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Random Republican WINGNUTS (or RRWs as they are affectionately known as)

June 25th, 2022, 5:48 pm

 hemmm, how to be solved?
Screenshot 2022-06-25 at 19.46.22.png
Forbid abortion for republicans only ?
and forbid prevention for democrats only ?
or best solution, they must jump in same bed, one must have + and - to get electricity, like with like so bored they just watch tv or internet, or end up frustrated in the streets (of Chicago?) without even understanding why
 
User avatar
bearish
Posts: 5186
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

Re: Random Republican WINGNUTS (or RRWs as they are affectionately known as)

June 25th, 2022, 11:09 pm

Well, “fuck Elon” is always a good start. But the victims of the evangelical Republicans are mostly neither Democrats not Republicans. They are just people. Mostly women and girls, whose bodies they will no longer have much say over, but there are obviously men and boys with an interest in the matter, too. Getting somebody pregnant is a bigger deal if it is a done deal at conception, with hard prison time to be served for trying to change that. Of course, it is just a matter of time before states will demand to track the menstrual cycle of all of those who they identify as female between the ages of 11 and 51. As well as a record of all planned trips out of state. Because, you never know what they may do in the Sodom and Gomorrah of, say, New York or California. This is much less of a joke than that little dust-up in Oslo yesterday.
 
User avatar
Marsden
Posts: 787
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Random Republican WINGNUTS (or RRWs as they are affectionately known as)

June 26th, 2022, 2:18 pm

A pretty concise read on the evolution of Trumpublican and evangelical opposition to abortion: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ns-107133/
 
User avatar
bearish
Posts: 5186
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

Re: Random Republican WINGNUTS (or RRWs as they are affectionately known as)

June 26th, 2022, 3:09 pm

Given that the cheapest and least inconvenient method of abortion is performed with medication, there is no prize for guessing that the primary provider in half the country will be Mexican gangs. They already have the logistics and distribution network. You thought the war on drugs was ugly? Wait until you see the war on abortion drugs! Because now the stakes are higher. It’s not just about denying people whatever pleasure and enjoyment they may derive from taking recreational drugs, now it’s about controlling their sex lives. Much more important in the eyes of their god!
 
User avatar
Marsden
Posts: 787
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Random Republican WINGNUTS (or RRWs as they are affectionately known as)

June 26th, 2022, 8:07 pm

Image
 
User avatar
bearish
Posts: 5186
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

Re: Random Republican WINGNUTS (or RRWs as they are affectionately known as)

December 27th, 2022, 4:33 am

So, incoming congressman George Santos has now acknowledged lying about pretty much everything in his employment and educational history, but he will still serve. Because he is a Republican, and truth has nothing to do with anything.
 
User avatar
DavidJN
Posts: 242
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Re: Random Republican WINGNUTS (or RRWs as they are affectionately known as)

December 27th, 2022, 11:56 am

Meanwhile, north of the border Canadian Conservatives are working furiously to find (manufacture) something resembling a full-time job before politics to put on his Wiki page so that the federal Conservative party leader Pierre Poilievre can claim to have done something other than politics before becoming a professional politician. In any event, Pierre Poilievre has gone into hiding, which is unusual because Canadian Conservative leaders usually only go AWOL during election campaigns.
 
User avatar
bearish
Posts: 5186
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

Re: Random Republican WINGNUTS (or RRWs as they are affectionately known as)

February 25th, 2023, 1:31 am

This may be a mistake, as in it should probably be a new thread. But, anyway, the bleeding head Ron DeSantis, the very Trumpian governor of Florida, who is now trying to out-Trump Trump, is pushing a law that would ban Florida universities from teaching any courses with a curriculum based on theoretical content. The specific phrasing is “with a curriculum based on unproven, theoretical or exploratory content”. Florida is slipping into the sea anyway, so it may not matter much, but worth a thought for anybody with an academic interest that leans toward theory (of any kind, really).
 
User avatar
Alan
Posts: 2958
Joined: December 19th, 2001, 4:01 am
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Random Republican WINGNUTS (or RRWs as they are affectionately known as)

February 25th, 2023, 3:38 pm

This may be a mistake, as in it should probably be a new thread. But, anyway, the bleeding head Ron DeSantis, the very Trumpian governor of Florida, who is now trying to out-Trump Trump, is pushing a law that would ban Florida universities from teaching any courses with a curriculum based on theoretical content. The specific phrasing is “with a curriculum based on unproven, theoretical or exploratory content”. Florida is slipping into the sea anyway, so it may not matter much, but worth a thought for anybody with an academic interest that leans toward theory (of any kind, really).
Fact check: based on the text, I'd call that FALSE.
 
User avatar
Marsden
Posts: 787
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Random Republican WINGNUTS (or RRWs as they are affectionately known as)

February 25th, 2023, 3:53 pm

This may be a mistake, as in it should probably be a new thread. But, anyway, the bleeding head Ron DeSantis, the very Trumpian governor of Florida, who is now trying to out-Trump Trump, is pushing a law that would ban Florida universities from teaching any courses with a curriculum based on theoretical content. The specific phrasing is “with a curriculum based on unproven, theoretical or exploratory content”. Florida is slipping into the sea anyway, so it may not matter much, but worth a thought for anybody with an academic interest that leans toward theory (of any kind, really).
Let's hope they carefully remove all of the sections about restricting Jewish enrollment from their source document ...
 
User avatar
Marsden
Posts: 787
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Random Republican WINGNUTS (or RRWs as they are affectionately known as)

February 25th, 2023, 5:43 pm

This may be a mistake, as in it should probably be a new thread. But, anyway, the bleeding head Ron DeSantis, the very Trumpian governor of Florida, who is now trying to out-Trump Trump, is pushing a law that would ban Florida universities from teaching any courses with a curriculum based on theoretical content. The specific phrasing is “with a curriculum based on unproven, theoretical or exploratory content”. Florida is slipping into the sea anyway, so it may not matter much, but worth a thought for anybody with an academic interest that leans toward theory (of any kind, really).
Fact check: based on the text, I'd call that FALSE.
From the text of the bill:

"... and provide direction to each constituent university on removing from its programs any major or minor in Critical Race Theory, Gender Studies, or Intersectionality, or any derivative major or minor of these belief systems, which is any major or minor that engenders beliefs in the concepts defined in s. 1000.05(4)(a)."
Section 1000.05(4)(a), which I think was passed into law last year and which (by my reading) completely obliterates provisions that had been related to affirmative action, reads

(4)(a) It shall constitute discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex under this section to subject any student or employee to training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such student or employee to believe any of the following concepts:
1. Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.
2. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
3. A person’s moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.
4. Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, national origin, or sex.
5. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
6. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
7. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the person played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, national origin, or sex to oppress members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.
Section 1000.05(4) had previously read

(4) Public schools and Florida College System institutions shall develop and implement methods and strategies to increase the participation of students of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, disability, or marital status in programs and courses in which students of that particular race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, disability, or marital status have been traditionally underrepresented, including, but not limited to, mathematics, science, computer technology, electronics, communications technology, engineering, and career education.
Back to the bill:

Each university shall submit, as a component of the university's annual accountability plan:
...
3. Documentation of its efforts to promote the education for citizenship of the constitutional republic and the cultivation of the intellectual autonomy of its undergraduate students.
That just seems kind of scary/weird to me: some central authority is going to decide how post-secondary educational institutions should educate students for citizenship, and decide what cultivates "the intellectual autonomy of its undergraduate students?" Haven't we seen that movie before?

"Courses with a curriculum based on unproven, theoretical, or exploratory content are best suited to fulfill elective or specific program prerequisite credit requirements, rather than general education credit requirements."
This section has the language quoted by bearish, and it bans the described courses only for core ("general") educational requirements. So bearish's claim is, on it's face, incorrect. However ...

"(3) General education courses must: 
...
(d) Whenever applicable, promote the philosophical underpinnings of Western civilization and include studies of this nation's historical documents, including the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments thereto, and the Federalist Papers."
Um ... clarification, please: are these post-secondary educational institutions supposed to "promote the philosophical underpinnings of Western civilization" or cultivate "the intellectual autonomy of its undergraduate students?" Because these are opposite things, whether the government of the State of Florida realizes it or not. Perhaps "inform about the philosophical underpinnings ..." would be better than "promote."

(b) A state university is prohibited from using diversity, equity, and inclusion statements, Critical Race Theory rhetoric, or other forms of political identity filters as part of the hiring process, including as part of applications for employment, promotion and tenure, conditions of employment, or reviewing qualifications for employment. This paragraph applies to the hiring process for any position at the university, including the position of president of the university.
Seems like affirmative action abolished under cover of objecting to Critical Race Theory ...

(1) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, a Florida College System institution, state university, Florida College System institution direct-support organization, or state university direct-support organization may not, directly or through a contract, grant, or agreement that provides services, shall expend any funds, regardless of source, to:
...
(b) Promote, support, or maintain any programs or campus activities that violate s. 1000.05(4)(a) or that espouse diversity, equity, and inclusion or Critical Race Theory rhetoric.
Um ... does this mean that anything that claims that "all men are created equal" should not be promoted through such funds, because it espouses equity? I'd just like to make sure we're completely clear about that ...
(c) General education core courses may not suppress or distort significant historical events or include a curriculum that teaches identity politics, such as Critical Race Theory, or defines American history as contrary to the creation of a new nation based on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.
What utter bullshit. Can the "significant historical event" of the racially delineated institution of slavery in America -- and the system of official apartheid that followed it -- be taught at all, given that teaching it would inevitably define "American history as contrary to the creation of a new nation based on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence?" How could any person of good conscience and a minimal amount of intellect be comfortable with abiding by laws crafted so poorly and apparently by people so monumentally unfit for the task?

I mean, if we're going to "promote the education for citizenship of the constitutional republic" based on fictional work -- such as the imaginary nation "based on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence" -- shouldn't we scour literature to find the fictional work that best serves promoting good citizenship? Maybe something gleaned from The Lord of the Rings -- didn't elves, dwarves, hobbits, and men get along pretty well for awhile in that? -- could be used.
 
User avatar
bearish
Posts: 5186
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

Re: Random Republican WINGNUTS (or RRWs as they are affectionately known as)

February 25th, 2023, 5:56 pm

This may be a mistake, as in it should probably be a new thread. But, anyway, the bleeding head Ron DeSantis, the very Trumpian governor of Florida, who is now trying to out-Trump Trump, is pushing a law that would ban Florida universities from teaching any courses with a curriculum based on theoretical content. The specific phrasing is “with a curriculum based on unproven, theoretical or exploratory content”. Florida is slipping into the sea anyway, so it may not matter much, but worth a thought for anybody with an academic interest that leans toward theory (of any kind, really).
Fact check: based on the text, I'd call that FALSE.
I stand corrected. My source (Michael Nietzel of Forbes) was a bit sloppy in his writing and I added a bit of slop of my own. The proposed ban only affects required general education courses, which must be “traditional” so as to “promote the values…” Of course the whole bill update is a total right wing abomination, but it’s Florida.